I never thought, in a million years, that the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc, would nominate Donald Trump as their best to put forth. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Over dinner several months ago my then 8-year old asked what we were going to do if Trump were elected president, and I said that he's not going to be elected president, but if he was, I joked that I heard Canada was nice. Ricky, any nice neighborhoods I should start researching?

My in-laws are Trump supporters. My wife and they have an agreement to not talk politics anymore: it just makes the both of them crazy. Maybe that's part of the problem?

Well, you could join the long list of celebrities who vowed to move to Canada if various Republicans were elected POTUS (and were), though I trust and hope you won't, George.

Frankly, the country would probably be a better place if these self-important people actually followed through, rather than merely grandstand:Whooopie GoldbergJon StewartRosie O'DonnellAl SharptonMiley Cyrus

They can join the list of other celebrity hacks who made the pledge to move if Bush was elected, but found reasons to backslide:Robert AltmanAlec BaldwinEddie Vedder

Of course, some Republican hacks have made similar "pledges" if Obama won, and as far as I know, they have not left. It's all so pathetic.

But like I said, I'm sure you're just commiserating, and I don't much blame you.

However, it is quite the historical event to see a major political party going through the pangs of a metamorphic event. Probably what would happen to the Dems if Bernie became their candidate. On the other hand, what else did the Republicans have to work with: Cruz!? At least Kasich presented himself as the sober, middle-of-the-road alternative to those two, which is apparently not what is wanted at this point.

Trump vs Clinton: The mind fairly reels at the realization that this is going to be all we have to work with.

Trump took the lead in polling on July 29 2015 and never really looked back. There was a great deal of denial going on since then.And indeed denial about the nature of the republican party by many republicans over the last decades. Where a significant segment is obviously motivated by racial resentment, a lot of republcians and the media have not addressed this.... and so it festers. And the only candidate who played to that racial resentment built himself first a plurality and finally a surprising majority. (He was the lead Birther after all...)http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/yes_tru ... _his_rise/

And over the last decades a great deal of false equivalence and centrification on behalf of the media. The media has been at fault for this....and the establishment of Fox and MSNBC into two prejudice media outlets. Although the Republican debates, and what passed for discourse in the republican campaign were a shambles...they were often treated seriously.Most recently Trumps so-called serious foreign policy speech which was a shambles of contradictions and blarney. and yet suppossedly serious media outlets like the Wall Street Journal gave it a positive review... Trump has access to a resevoir of 30 to 30% of voters who are immune from genuinely critical coverage of his racism and irrational policies as they live in their media silos. And these people are also swamped with innuendo about Hillaries supposed crimes like Ben Ghazi. I suspect Trump will continue to have, as he has had, a harder time with young voters because they are genuinely more media savvy then the older voters who live in their silos. But it will be interesting to see how the media treats Trump. Because he's the nominee do they now start to try and present his notions as serious policies? Do they equivacate between his behaviour and Clintons? They already did this comparing her campaign to Trumps... As Paul Krugman said

I’ve already seen pundits suggest that both presumptive nominees fight dirty, that both have taken the “low road” in their campaigns. For the record, Mr. Trump has impugned his rivals’ manhood, called them liars and suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was associated with J.F.K.’s killer. On her side, Mrs. Clinton has suggested that Bernie Sanders hasn’t done his homework on some policy issues. These things are not the same.

Do you think Trump will get the microscope he deserves? He will be on trial for fraud (Trump University) in August.... Will the media cover that fairly?Maybe... Even Oscar de la Hoya gets coverage because he says Trump chearts at golf... Now thats a serious claim...

Trump and Sanders understood the discontent of the electorate. Many/most of the GOP field were running on their competence and/or vision, or with Cruz his conservatism.

Trump appeals to typically unengaged voters--those who would not usually vote in the GOP primary. That's why he did well in open primary States.

It's those voters, the ones who don't care what he says or what he does, who carried him to victory.

I do think it's important to note that he has won over about 5% of the November electorate--tops. In other words, he won about 10% of the likely GOP fall voters. Even though he won a record number of votes, it's a fraction of what he will need on Election Day.

Trump appeals to typically unengaged voters--those who would not usually vote in the GOP primary. That's why he did well in open primary States. It's those voters, the ones who don't care what he says or what he does, who carried him to victory.

He got 54% of the vore in Indiana. 57% in Pennsylvania.60% in New York... So you're saying that, at least in these states, the majority of Republican primary voters are "typically unengaged"?What does it say about those who didn't vote in the primary but might turn out in November?

Fate

I do think it's important to note that he has won over about 5% of the November electorate--tops. In other words, he won about 10% of the likely GOP fall voters. Even though he won a record number of votes, it's a fraction of what he will need on Election Day.

Trump took the lead in polling on July 29 2015 and never really looked back. There was a great deal of denial going on since then.

Yeah, but there's often someone like Trump, who I thought would be a flash in the pan, like Herman Cain. Why did Trump persist? It's not like he hasn't had a gaffs or mistakes on the magnitude that sunk other candidacies. In fact, he's probably had more. Nothing seems to matter to a certain part of the electorate, other than maybe sticking a thumb in the "establishments" eye.

Doctor Fate wrote:It's those voters, the ones who don't care what he says or what he does, who carried him to victory.

I guess that must be right. But why doesn't the terrible behavior, language, manner, and bankruptcies, divorces, why doesn't any of that matter anymore? It used to matter, really recently, but now it doesn't. Why don't they care?

Trump appeals to typically unengaged voters--those who would not usually vote in the GOP primary. That's why he did well in open primary States. It's those voters, the ones who don't care what he says or what he does, who carried him to victory.

He got 54% of the vore in Indiana. 57% in Pennsylvania.60% in New York... So you're saying that, at least in these states, the majority of Republican primary voters are "typically unengaged"?What does it say about those who didn't vote in the primary but might turn out in November?

Fate

I do think it's important to note that he has won over about 5% of the November electorate--tops. In other words, he won about 10% of the likely GOP fall voters. Even though he won a record number of votes, it's a fraction of what he will need on Election Day.

A failure of the primary system then?

Higher percentages of working class whites in the States you listed. Plus, Cruz's "New York values" comment was distorted by Trump and used like a club in NY.

Did the primary system fail? Yes. Trump is a good argument for closed primaries only. Additionally, there needs to be a way to winnow the field more forcefully. I don't know what that would be.

I did think the massively-sized early debates imbalanced the race by letting Trump generalize and tap dance. If there were only 4 candidates, he would have had to give some substance (or prove himself lacking such). When there were 17, 4 separate debates would have served much better.

Trump took the lead in polling on July 29 2015 and never really looked back. There was a great deal of denial going on since then.

Yeah, but there's often someone like Trump, who I thought would be a flash in the pan, like Herman Cain. Why did Trump persist? It's not like he hasn't had a gaffs or mistakes on the magnitude that sunk other candidacies. In fact, he's probably had more. Nothing seems to matter to a certain part of the electorate, other than maybe sticking a thumb in the "establishments" eye.

Again, he came into a crowded field and hit 20%. What should have happened is there should have been some pressure on the bottom 3 or 4 to get out before a debate.

Trump also played the press for suckers. They boosted him like no one ever has had happen before.

Doctor Fate wrote:It's those voters, the ones who don't care what he says or what he does, who carried him to victory.

I guess that must be right. But why doesn't the terrible behavior, language, manner, and bankruptcies, divorces, why doesn't any of that matter anymore? It used to matter, really recently, but now it doesn't. Why don't they care?

It really is the cult of personality. I told someone today Trump went after and captured the "white trash vote." He acts just like they do. And, if he goes too far, their attitude is that they are "sending a message to Washington" and "it's time to shake things up."